- (1.) ALL these petitions are disposed of by this common or- der on the ground of territorial jurisdiction only.
(2.) ALL the petitioners applied before the Medical Council of India to grant registration under Sec. 13 (3) of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (for short the `act' ). Their applications have been turned down by the Medical Council of India itself in view of the decision taken by the executive committee of the Council in its meeting held on 17. 7. 1997, which was subsequently approved by the General Body of the Council in its meeting on 23. 10. 1997. Learned counsel Shri Saluji appearing for the Medical Council of India raised preliminary objection regarding territorial jurisdiction of this Court. He submitted that mere contention of the petitioners that they reside in State of Rajasthan will not confer any territorial jurisdiction to this Court. In support of this submission Mr. Saluja relied upon a judgment of Supreme Court in case of Oil and Natural Gas Commission vs. Utpal Kumar Basu and others (1 ). As against that, learned counsel Shri Sharma and Sidhu appearing for the petitioners submitted that all the petitioners have applied for registration under Sec. 13 (3) of the Act, 1956 which requires for State Medical registration and the petitioners are inclined to get registered with Rajasthan State Medical Council, therefore, this Court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain these cases and decide the same on merits. In support of his submission, Mr. Sharma and Sidhu have relied upon a judgment of Single Bench of this Court delivered in writ petition No. 1430/98 decided on 13. 5. 1998 Apart from the fact that no preliminary objection was raised before the learned Single Judge of this Court at Jaipur Bench about territorial jurisdiction, from the judgment itself it is clear that a letter dated 18. 3. 1998 issued to the petitioner by the Registrar, Rajasthan Medical Council itself was under Cha- llenge, whereby, the petitioner of that case was informed that the Medical Council of India had already informed the Rajasthan Medical Council that it had already recommended to the Central Govt. for de- recognition of the medical qualification granted by erstwhile USSR. In that view of the matter in that case this Court might have entertained the matter. However, in the present cases that is not the question. All the petitioners have applied before the Medical Council of India for registration which was refused in view of the resolution dated 23. 10. 1997 passed by the General Body of the Medical Council. It is true that the said decision was communicated to the petitioner, who are residing in State of Rajasthan. However, in my opinion, it would not confer any jurisdiction to this Court. All these petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, however, Article 226 (2) of the Constitution clearly provides that the power conferred by clause (1) to issue directions, orders or writs to any Government, authority or person may also be exercised by any High Court exercising jurisdiction in relation to the territories within which the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises for the exercise of such power. In all these cases the cause of action wholly or in part does not arise in the State, therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction.
(3.) THIS Court cannot assume jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the present cases merely because the petitioners are residents of this State. I am fortified in my view by the judgment of Supreme court in Utpal Kumar's case (supra ). The Hon'ble Supreme Court clearly observed in para no. 12 of the judgment that:- "it is indeed a great pity that one of the premier High Courts of the Country should appear to have developed a tendency to assume juris- diction on the sole ground that the petitioner before it resides in or carries on business from a registered office in the State of West Bengal. " The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed in para no. 12 that: "it must be remembered that the image and prestige of a court de- pends on how the members of that institution conduct themselves. If an impression gains ground that even in cases which fall outside the territorial jurisdiction of the court, certain members of the court would be willing to exercise jurisdiction on the plea that some event, however trivial and unconnected with the cause of action had occu- rred within the jurisdiction of the said court, litigants would seek to abuse the process by carrying the cause before such members giving rise to avoidable suspicion. That would lower the dignity of the institution and put the entire system to ridicule. We are greatly pained to say that so but if we do not strongly deprecate the growing tendency we will, we are afraid, be failing in our duty to the institution and the system of administration of justice. We do hope that we will not have another occasion to deal with such a situation. " In view of the above discussion, without going into the merits of the case all these petitions are dismissed only on the ground that this Court had no territorial jurisdiction. . ;